The Hawaiian gazette., 1887-10-25

not he sufficient IN itself for finding that
there WIS such an engagement. ihero bad
been good deal said by c0unse in regard 50
character. There was an attempt made g. in
troduce evidence IN the form of depOsIuons
from San Francisco, Los Angeles. etc. ia
regard % the character of the plaintiff bat
II was ruled That such evidence could not be
introduced because her character was not
assailed. There had been no evidences as to
the character or disposition Of either OF the
parties. The presumption was that as far az
they had heard the plaintiff was OF good
character. great deal had been brought
out by questions to The Jury in regard to
political troubles which had passed, and
good deal said about the political life and
character of the defendant. Ii WIS his si7ltv
to charge them thai the political life or
character OF either plaintiff or defendant
was not III question there. An engagement
of marriage was q private matter fhev
were sworn to give their verdict according 70
the law and the evidence. They could NOS
60 beyond that and consider the occupation
of the plaintiff which 10 WIS customary for
people to ehaf abOut-as for instances. the
remark often heard about book agents
" bounding one 10 death" Neither was the
defendant to be considered in the light Of
his political life. His Honor concluded by
passing upon requests b. counsel for partic-
ular rulings. In case Of u breach OF promise
being found damages we're not 10 be meas
ured by any known standard, but en-
urely according to the iurv's own
estimate of the injury done. Al
though the breach left no stain on
plaiutit. 1t would still be case FOR compen-
satlng damages. 1t the breach had Occa-
stoned shame and mental grief, damages
might be assessed for such injuries. In these
respects they were to draw their Conclusions
entirely from the evidence. Compansatipo
damages must be beyond any material loss
proved. he declined 90 rule that no special
DAMAGES had been alleged or proved. on the
ground that It was for the jury to decide that
question. Also he denied the request
that the jury be instructed to consider
whether the marriage, had il taken place.
would have been a good settlement to the
plaintiff. No estimate was to be made Of or
penses sustained by the plaintiff since the
beginning of the slut. they could find dam
ages for injury done to the feelings OF
plaintiff. lie could not instruct them tb9t
there had been no injury done rs that was
for the jury To consider. II they found there
was a promise then they must find M ehers
was a breach, and if there were q promise
and breach then the only question would
be as to damages.
Mr.. Hatch enters exceptions 70 the ruliar
of the Court on several points of requests ior
The jury retired at 1880. and signiied their
desire to return by a loud knock at Il:SO.
Counsel being called in His Honor read
the verdict. which they declared to be unani-
nous. as follows:
1--WE find for the plaintiff, and assess dam
ages at ten thousand dOllprs."
Mr.. Hatch gave notice Of motion for a new
trial, on the ground that tn verdict was
contrary TO the law and the evidence
The foreign jury We're notified to be in
at 10 O'Clock on Friday, 70 which
time the Court forthwith adjourned.